Dinner for Schmucks review

I didn’t plan to write a Dinner for Schmucks review. With a dumb title and a lame “high-concept” premise (Paul Rudd has to find a schmuck to take to his boss’s annual, make-fun-of-schmucks dinner), but a cast of almost every likable, comedic actor in Hollywood (Rudd, Steve Carell, Jemaine Clement, Zach Galifianakis, Ron Livingston, etc.), I figured it’d make for light entertainment; a few chuckles and a pleasant way to spend 90 minutes. Basically, the same thing I got with Get Him to the Greek, Predators, and to a slightly lesser extent, A-Team. Mild, unmemorable entertainment. Not life changing, but time passing.

As it turned out, I was so surprised by what I got, I couldn’t help but write about it. Boy did I hate this movie.

The script, based on the 1998 French film, Le Diner de Cons, felt like it was written in 1935. I understand it was meant to be a farce, but everything was so ridiculously theatrical and over the top, it was like watching a badly-translated Mexican sitcom from the 70s. And I don’t mean their nice sight gags, like the guy with a fly swatter chasing around bee man, (the visual humor of Dinner for Schmucks‘ opening credits, with Steve Carell’s character painting his stuffed mice, was the funniest of the few funny moments of the movie), I mean the overwhelming shrillness, the buffonery, the cartoonish sexuality and face licking (not exaggerating here, there was face licking). It was all over-the-top, groan-worthy camp, like a freshman drama club student trying to include the “wackiest” thing he could think of every five seconds.

A paint-by-numbers script isn’t necessarily the kiss of death for a film like this. There’s a finite number of plots in the world and that’s fine. There are only so many ways you can buck convention before you end up with two dyslexic mimes beer bonging badger semen. I get that. But I Love You, Man had a pretty basic script too. As did The Hangover, Wedding Crashers, Old School, Road Trip, Baby Mama,Pineapple Express, etc., all of which were a thousand times funnier than Dinner for Schmucks. The problem with Dinner for Schmucks wasn’t the basic premise itself, it was that all of the supposed humor relied on your acceptance of their tired, asinine plot points. If the script had given these actors a little room to screw around (and to be fair, Carell and Galifianakis do squeeze blood from a stone a couple times), it might’ve been an enjoyable experience.

Instead, it was retarded plot twist after retarded plot twist. We’re asked to accept that Steve Carell’s character is buffoonish on a level that would make later-seasons Homer Simpson look like Steven Hawking. At one point, after a preposterous sequence of events that has Carell’s character trash Paul Rudd’s apartment through a mistaken identity involving a picture of a butt and Rudd’s psychotic stalker one-night-stand (dude… don’t ask), Carell and Rudd wind up in Carell’s office at the IRS. They need Carell’s co-worker, Zach Galifianakis, to help them find an address (at least that’s what we’re told — seems like Carell could just look it up himself seeing as how they do basically the same job, but whatever). An address. That’s it. Instead, in about five minutes of screen time, Galifianakis’ character:

Is revealed to be an infomercial psychic

Convinces Carell’s character that he has paralyzed him with his mind

Finds errors in Paul Rudd’s tax return

Threatens Paul Rudd over and over with an IRS audit

Demands that Carell’s character share his pudding

Is caught kissing Carell’s ex-wife.

Rudd and Carell never get the address for which they came but leave anyway for some reason. Does that sound obnoxious to you? Because it is. Instead of beginning with a wild plot point and then sort of dialing it down to lure you back in (like say, Elf), it’s just one over-the-top piece of wackiness on top of the next, building up to one giant tower of pointlessness. Everything is so exhaustingly contrived, it’s not just boring, it’s actually frustrating to watch. It only gets boring later, once you purposely check out to avoid being pissed off.

Let’s see, how many hokey, Three’s Company clichés can they throw at the wall here…

Mistaken identity?

A cell phone mix-up leading to hijinks?

The clingy, psycho ex ruining the protagonist’s relationship?

Girlfriend leaving straitlaced guy for free-spirited artist?

An innocent misunderstanding wherein something innocuous is mistaken for infidelity?

A cruel bet made at a stranger’s expense?

…that the stranger finds out about only after you’ve grown close?

An Important Business Meeting with an Important Foreign Businessman that the protagonist’s job depends on?

Clichés are impossible to avoid completely, but there a few ways to deal with them. You could include them, but acknowledge them as clichés of the genre and have fun with them in a self-aware way (see: Kick-Ass, Spider-Man 2, Iron Man, Herzog’s Bad Lieutenant). Keep a few of them, but incorporate them in a very grounded, very believable way (I Love You, Man). Or, just not have so f*cking many of them that I resort to cataloging just to keep from stabbing myself in the eye. It wasn’t just that Dinner for Schmuckshad clichés, it was that it was totally reliant on them for most of the humor. Hijinks! Hijinks! Hijinks! like junior high dinner theater.

Preposterousness can work in comedy (see: South Park), but not when the humor always relies on the situation’s believability. For example, at one point, Paul Rudd and Steve Carell are leaving a restaurant in Rudd’s car after a wild lunch with Foreign Businessman and Psycho Ex. Psycho Ex chases them outside, picks up a pole and starts smashing up Rudd’s car with it. She smashes his headlights, his rearview mirrors, his back window, and stabs the pointy tip through Rudd’s roof. All the while, Paul Rudd sits in the driver’s seat with his keys in the ignition, doing nothing. The entire time, all I can think is, “Why wouldn’t you just drive away?” There is nothing keeping him from driving away.

It’s not that I’m refusing to suspend disbelief, it’s just that the solution the character is avoiding is so OBVIOUS that it can’t be ignored. It’s just bad writing. And anyway, what’s the payoff, the punchline we get to after all that plot work and suspended disbelief? A girl smashing a guy’s car? Meh. Double meh.

Other lines that were supposed to be funny:

“There’s no ‘me’ in ‘mean.'”

“Switzerland. I love your cheese. With the holes… I’ve always wondered, does the cheese come out of the cow with the holes already in it?”

“They say when life gives you lemon, make lemonade. But what if you don’t have any water or sugar? Just eat the lemons, I guess. But the rinds will give you diarrhea! So mama mia, papa pia — oh, hi, Tim!”

What? F*ck.

Or how about the time Paul Rudd tells Steve Carell to “stay in the chair,” so Steve Carell LITERALLY HOLDS THE CHAIR UP TO HIS BUTT while he leaves the apartment to go “save brunch?”

If that doesn’t strike you as an idiotic plot point, well then this is the movie for you.

Grade: F (I can’t give it better, as much as I want to. I actually left the theater about five minutes after Jeff Dunham showed up. And I stayed for all of Last Airbender, which was at least a D or D-).

Post-Script: Plenty of people whose opinion I generally respect have enjoyed this movie. I don’t see it, but there you go. Since it was commenter Pauly Dangerously who saw it and liked it and suggested we see this, we’ll have him on the Frotcast to represent the opposing view point. Send your counter arguments to him.

This movie was funny, cliche and driven to the point of unbelievable, yes but once you get over the fact that this isn’t a fucking danny boyle film and it’s just meant for enjoyment I think it’s quite hilarious.
Like you said it was based on a farce and that’s exactly what it is. It’s SUPPOSED to be over the top. It’s SUPPOSED to play on whether or not this shit could actually happen. I even got the impression it was supposed to be fairly campy and PG safe.
This script gave plenty and I mean plenty of room to screw around, how about the crazy meeting sequence between Rudd and Carell, none of witch felt scripted; or the living room destruction scene in which Carell acts nuts and has plenty of fun fucking around and of course, as aforementioned the interaction between Galifinakis and Carell.
Albeit there were moments of frustration, glad I wasn’t the only one who cringed as to why Rudd didn’t just put his goddamn foot on the pedal or continually allowed Carell to hang around. What the fuck happened to the address when they went to find it? But i got over those things as I was choking on laughter from Jemaine Clement. “Am i going to have sex with those two girls, Hell yeah. Hell yes I am but because I have to”

As for the cliches, I agree with a few.
* Mistaken identity? Yes, but that added to the character development of an obvious moron, Carell.
* A cell phone mix-up leading to hijinks? I’ll give it to you. Although it was pleasantly cringe worthy.
* The clingy, psycho ex ruining the protagonist’s relationship? Added to the comedy, in my eyes.
* Girlfriend leaving straitlaced guy for free-spirited artist? She didn’t.
* An innocent misunderstanding wherein something innocuous is mistaken for infidelity? Okay, WELL OVERPLAYED
* A cruel bet made at a stranger’s expense? Overplayed but necessary to make the movie look a little more light hearted.
* …that the stranger finds out about only after you’ve grown close? Didn’t see it.
* An Important Business Meeting with an Important Foreign Businessman that the protagonist’s job depends on?
Yeah.

SUMMARY: I agree that Dunham sucks, some shit’s far fetched and a bit cliche. But this movie isn’t a independent film. It’s supposed to be stupid mindless entertainment. I thoughtlessly enjoyed it. MUCH BETTER THAN MANNY’S NEW CRAP.
Carell, Rudd, Galifinakis, and Clement more than satisfied my stupid comedy appetite.

Grade = B

also, i’m drunk

By: Burnsy

08.03.2010 @ 6:18 PM

Pauly liked it because Chodin fell for the popcorn trick.

By: Burnsy

08.03.2010 @ 6:20 PM

Well if gutter liked it…

*adds Dinner with Schmucks to Netflix queue, waits by door*

By: Dingus

08.03.2010 @ 6:34 PM

Worse than Airbender????

A review to ruin careers… and lives.

By: CROOOOW!

08.03.2010 @ 6:34 PM

@ gutter

lolwut?

By: Leonard T. Pants

08.03.2010 @ 6:41 PM

I haven’t seen Schmuck’s, and now I won’t, but I think Gutter is probably right; the writing wasn’t bad on accident.

I think Hollywood long ago discovered that you can’t lose money underestimating the sensibilities of american moviegoers. Case in point – Jeff Fucking Dunham.

By: spazmodic

08.03.2010 @ 6:58 PM

Three-word review: Movie For Tards.

By: Gimpy

08.03.2010 @ 7:07 PM

It’s always a bad sign for a comedy when there isn’t a single funny moment in any preview.

By: ElGordoGrande

08.03.2010 @ 7:11 PM

I enjoyed this movie. Granted its carried by the cast. If you took out any of the major players this think would have been PAINFUL.

I do wonder why Dunham was in this. It’s like the rest of the cast lost a bet.

Of course, I’m new here so what the fuck to I know.

By: The Jersey Devil

08.03.2010 @ 7:18 PM

It looks like some sort of sex-crazed robot is banging the shit out of the roof of Paul Rudds’s car. Carell looks a bit wary, but intrigued all the same. That’s what I call chemistry.

By: Lester Hayes Mayes

08.03.2010 @ 7:24 PM

Eh. We liked it well enough, because we liked the comedians in it. But yeah, it had problems. The problems you aren’t putting your finger on are:

1) It was PG-13, but felt like it was supposed to be an Apatow type comedy. So it didn’t go places you wanted because it couldn’t, and the places it went were familiar — hence, the charge that it was cliches for retards.
2) They obviously cast Carrell and Rudd to counterbalance the viciousness of the basic plot. If they had gone with edgier folks, the movie would have been different — probably better, but not what they set out to do.
3) Carrell’s character is supposed to be that dense — it’s kind of the whole point. That he is so stupid and yet a better person than just about everyone else in the film is kinda the “message,” to the extent slapstick comedies are supposed to have a message. Their lack of subtlety in this area limited the film.

By: The Jersey Devil

08.03.2010 @ 7:40 PM

How dare you make fun of Jeff Dunham?!

If you say he sucks, then you are also saying “Delta Farce” sucked, since he was in it. And if you say “Delta Farce” sucked, then you are also saying Danny Trejo sucks, since he was in it, too. And if you say Danny Trejo sucks, well, I can’t be responsible for what happens if he finds out about it. Best case scenario, he comes to your house, beats your ass six ways to Sunday, and has violent yet incredibly satisfying sex with your girlfriend. Or your mom, depends on his mood.

Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

By: Michelle07

08.03.2010 @ 7:55 PM

Did you like the French version?

By: JihadGirl69

08.03.2010 @ 8:51 PM

I would rather catch my dad “cruising” at the noon showing of Charlie St. Cloud then see this movie. Trying to defend this movie is as futile as trying to convince security that the semen all over the collar of you jean jacket in no way collaborates the complaints of you giving anonymous blowjobs during the Zac Efron movie.

By: Argentino

08.03.2010 @ 8:53 PM

I really liked the french version. I didn`t see this one because I live in a far away land.

By: Jirish

08.03.2010 @ 9:09 PM

Three word review. I loved it.

By: JihadGirl69

08.03.2010 @ 9:43 PM

Hanging out at a singles party for Mormons would be less lame.

By: David_StHubbins

08.04.2010 @ 12:32 AM

Could not agree more, Vince. I made the Three’s Company comparison as well (which, come to think of it, is an insult to Three’s Company). My brother and I almost walked out. Horrible, horrible movie.

By: Vince Mancini

08.04.2010 @ 12:38 AM

– Gutter

I respect your counter point. You seem to be more in the majority. I admit I’m a bad audience for anything old fashioned, campy, or farce-y. But in all honesty, I wasn’t expecting an indie movie, I was expecting mainstream comedy on the level of say, The Office, 30 Rock, Community, or even Modern Family. All mainstream, PG-rated shows, all quite a bit funnier than I thought Dinner for Schmucks was.

I did enjoy the meet cute between Carell and Rudd. As for the living room destruction, I can see your point that Carell was good and having fun in that scene, but I was too overwhelmed by the absolute ridiculousness of the psycho ex character. Nothing about her or her character was remotely believable and her acting was terrible. Just pure, over-the-top Seltzer-Friedberg stuff.

None of it dampened my enthusiasm for Jemaine, Rudd, Carell, or Galifianakis, I just couldn’t get past the horrible script. I could understand if other people could, that’s just my personal call. As for you saying it was SUPPOSED to be over the top, fine. There’s good over the top and there’s bad over the top. I mentioned Elf in the review, as I think that’s a good example of good over the top. None of it’s believable, but there’s a charm and spontaneity to it that I didn’t get with this at all. Most of the dialog was atrocious. Jemaine had one or two good lines early on. I.e.:

“What does it make you think of, Tim?

Well, it kind of makes me think of your dick.

Then you get it.”

But then later on, we get “Have you ever lived for forty days with a pack of goats, as one of them?” and Carell’s painful soliloquy about gonorrhea, and pretty much every supporting character at the dinner party. The pet psychic? Like I said, it feels like something a precocious junior high kid would come up with. It was all pained attempts to be quirky that just felt incredibly contrived and fell flat.

In my humble opinion. Obviously I’m a know it all because it’s my job, but I swear I’m actually interested in a reasoned counter argument. So if you have especially good points to make about why I’m wrong, I definitely urge you to email Pauly.

By: Vince Mancini

08.04.2010 @ 12:41 AM

And David, yeah, I felt bad for Three’s Company making that comparison. But Three’s Company came out like 20 years ago, and comedy has a shelf life. It seems dated now. But I feel like every studio execs attitude is, “Well, it was a big hit in 1982, so…”

By: Shop 101

08.04.2010 @ 5:38 AM

I stand by my limerick in the Inception Wins thread.

By: godotzilla

08.04.2010 @ 8:52 AM

The reasons Vince knocked this flick are all valid … and yet I still laughed my ass off. It was predictable, flabby, and tired–like your mom–and I felt dirty for enjoying it–like your mom. I wouldn’t pay to see it again, but if it turns up on cable, I’d probably give it another go round … like your mom. Try the veal.

By: Taco_Jones

08.04.2010 @ 10:23 AM

I stopped watching Three’s Company because they relied on the cell phone leading to mix-up hijinx far too many times.

By: Bloody Lethal

08.04.2010 @ 11:03 AM

Totally agree with this. This movie made me tight.

By: Otto Man

08.04.2010 @ 11:13 AM

Turrible, turrible movie.

By: RockSteakface

08.04.2010 @ 11:14 AM

Totally agree with this. This movie made me dry.

By: Dr. Stan Gassko

08.04.2010 @ 2:55 PM

Usually when foreign movies are re-made in the States, they simple aren’t as good, something gets lost in the translation, or a greedy Hollywood retard gets their mitts all over it.

That being said, the original “Le dîner de cons” was so unfunny, unoriginal and so full of tired farcical clichés, there was no way an American remake had any chance of being good.

By: The Polanski Pleasure Train

08.09.2010 @ 6:01 PM

I almost went and saw Schmucks this weekend. So glad that I didn’t. This strikes me as being very similar to the recent episodes of The Office which, likewise, is just painful to watch. I don’t see the point in watching something that not only isn’t funny, but is awkward to the point it makes you feel uncomfortable.